SINGHANIA & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-, Kz) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Singhania & Sons Pvt. Ltd…………...............................................................………………….............Appellant 3D, Duckback House 41, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aadcs 6078 A] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac...............................................………..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Katarua, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

37,473/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A by made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A by made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A by applying Clause (ii) of Rule 8D(2), the ld. Counse applying Clause

ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MACHINERY AGENCIES INDIA , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and consequently deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to interest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said that ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the interference of this Court. In paragraph 11, ITAT

M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

37 of the Paper Book. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the definition of ‘tax' under section 2(43) of the Act does not include Interest or penalty. 3.2.1 It is most humbly submitted that the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court was delivered subsequent to the Judgements by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court

M/S ABHIJEET ENTERPRISE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

37 to 160, relevant portion at para-5, on page 43) dated 10.05.2014 filed before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has, however, not addressed this grievant at all and merely upheld the addition made under section 68 of the Act On behalf of the assessee, a comparative chart of net profit rate of the assessee

ITO, WD-1(1), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S CACHAR KING PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Siliguri..………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd..……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent Situvita Tea Factory Bidhan Nagar Siliguri [Pan : Aabcc 0744 P] Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 27/05/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 22/09/2012, Disclosing Total Business Income At Rs.3,71,534/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 30/03/2015, Making An Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, U/S 68 Of The Act. This Was Set Off Against Carried Forward Losses & Gross Total Balance Was Determined At –Nil- Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

68 of the Act. This was set off against carried forward losses and gross total balance was determined at –Nil- Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. First Appellate Authority deleted the addition for the reasons given in his order. 3. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Cachar King

DALMIA LAMINATORS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 7(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

68 of the I.T. Act. iii. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ld. AO framed the assessment order u/s 143(3) vide order dated 14.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18 of the Act. The assessee in its return of income disclosing total income

M/S MRINALINI BIRI MANUFACTURING CO.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.85/Kol/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

68,092/- u/s 36(1)(v) on account of unapproved Gratuity Expenses. The same was paid to LIC under Employees Group Gratuity Scheme. The said fund was created exclusively for the benefits of Employee of the appellant company. As such the fund was created wholly and exclusively for the purpose of Business and should be allowed u/s 37(1). Therefore

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1,37

BENI PRASAD LAHOTI,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,765/- section 139 Returned income under Rs. 8,76,720/- section 153A Income disclosed under Rs. 7,50,000/- section 132(4) Addition under section Rs. 1,37

DESANA POLY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 34, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

J.C.I.T.(OSD),CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S WERIT GLOBAL LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

JCIT(OSD),CIR.-12(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEARIT GLOBAL LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 133(6) I.T.A No. 55/Kol/2020,I.T.A. No.20/Kol/2019, I.T.A. No.2191/Kol/2018 & I.T.A. No.115/Kol/2020 M/s Wearit Global Ltd. Assessment years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17 notice, pursuant to which, when the A.O had issued summons u/s 131of the Act, instead of notices u/s 133(6) as directed by him, the Ld. CIT(A) found fault with the action

MD. MUJIBUR RAHAMAN,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

68,583/- being employers' contribution under Section 43B of the Act. CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee had made the payment before the due date" of filing of the return, which was a fact apparent from the record - that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

37,25,0001- on which it had earned some capital gains. On the said capital gains the .assessee had also claimed that it was entitled for exemption under Section 54E of the Income Tax Act. Admittedly, the asset was purchased in the year 1972 and sold sometime in the year 1989. Thus, the asset is almost 17 years

M/S EVERSAFE SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

68 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The first appellate authority passed an ex-parte order and confirmed the order of the AO. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 2 I.T.A. No. 604/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Eversafe Securities Pvt. Ltd. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S BALMER LAWRIES & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) WD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 21, N.S.Road, (International Taxation), Kolkata-700 001 Ward-1(1), Aayakar [Pan No. Aabcb 0984 E] Bhawan (Poorva), 2Nd Floor, R. No.215, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata- 700 107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri M.K.Poddar, Sr-Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.P.Bhatia, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-02-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

68 SOT 184 (Bang). 8. Therefore, the law is by now well settled that there is no requirement to deduct any tax at source if the amount paid to non-resident is not chargeable to tax in India. Reliance in this connection is placed inter alia on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Van Oord

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. MAA ANNAPURNA TRANSPORT AGENCY LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkery, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not want to interfere in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and consequently the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 25. Ground no. 2 of revenue is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.12,75,987/- on account of interest payment